Post Tagged with: "Debbie Wasserman Schultz"

(Washington Examiner) –The Democratic National Committee is reducing ticket prices for a high-dollar fundraiser in San Francisco next week that features President Obama, according to an email sent to donors Monday.

Obama is set to appear at a luncheon at the SFJAZZ Center on Nov. 25 to benefit the DNC, but whether it’s a sign of donor fatigue or a general lack of interest, tickets have not been selling as expected.

“An exciting new update I would love to mention is that we have reduced the price for the general admission luncheon tickets to $500/person,” Shefali Razdan Duggal, a member of the DNC’s national finance committee, wrote in the email. “In addition, all current $1000 ticket holders will be upgraded to VIP (this includes premium seating near the stage and Presidential rope line access).”

Originally, entry-level tickets for the event started at $1,000, so the DNC is offering what amounts to a 50 percent discount.

Maybe Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, was simply caught off guard when MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts asked her about the governmentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s stated inability to report on exactly how many people have signed up for the Affordable Care ActÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s health insurance exchanges. Or maybe, nine days into the opening of those exchanges, the White House and the Democratic Party still do not have a convincing explanation for why the number of enrollees is perilously low. Either way, Wasserman Schultz delivered a pitiful performance on Wednesday when she was asked why the government will not release details on the number of Obamacare enrollees.

‘Cmon Debbie give us the numbers, since Obamacare is so supah doopah, surely Americans are flocking in droves to sign their lives, privacy and paychecks away.

THOMAS ROBERTS, =>MSNBC<=: So how would you respond to the messaging and the criticism that there has been about the rollout of Obamacare, the access to the exchanges, the glitches in the system that do exist and the fact that there isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t any hard data? Even though the government is not running the actual insurance exchanges, it is running the rollout and should be able to provide every curious American about the data and certainly journalists about the data of how many people are actually signing up accessing Obamacare. So where is that number?

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D-FL): So clearly weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re eight days in and to be insisting on data being produced day by day for a six-month enrollment program is a little bit unfair.

If the enrollment numbers were stellar, she would scream them from the highest rooftop.
Which begs the question; why didn’t she just lie? It is not like she is above such a thing.

(Politico) –”Debbie Wasserman Schultz said it wasnâ€™t a change of language, that there was no discord that we saw and it was a two-thirds vote. I mean, that is an alternate universe,” Cooper said.

Wasserman Schultz had just told CNN’s Brianna Keilar that there was no discord and “absolutely a two-thirds [vote].”

“From a reality standpoint… to say flat-out that there was no discord is just not true,” Cooper said.

Meanwhile, my colleague Reid Epstein reports tonight that President Obama “had seen the language prior to the convention, a campaign source said, but did not seek to change it until after Republicans jumped on the omissions of God and Jerusalem late Wednesday. And even then, it had to be forced through a convention hall full of delegates who nearly shouted down the change.”

Update 2: In a sideways admission of defeat and guilt, The DNC’s Wasserman-Schultz and Patrick Gaspard RUN AWAY from interviews with local Charlotte press.

Blair Miller of WSOC TV, ABCâ€™s Charlotte, N.C., affiliate, also tweeted that Wasserman Schultz cancelled her interview with him, without explanation. â€œAfter my Romney intv today, we were planning to interview @DWSTweets live,â€ he wrote. â€œHowever, she did not show up. Her staff not answering calls.â€

The Obama campaign sent out an e-mail today making light of it, saying — quote — “Women across America deserve to know the truth about Romney/Ryan’s extreme agenda.”

That notion is part of a larger Democratic effort to paint the Romney/Ryan ticket as the Romney/Ryan/Akin ticket. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN LABOLT, OBAMA CAMPAIGN PRESS SECRETARY: The Republican Party , Mitt Romney’s Republican Party, has now adopted Congressman Akin’s policies as part of their platform.

REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D), ILLINOIS: Paul Ryan and Todd Akin, like two peas in a pod.

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D), FLORIDA: And now we have a Republican Party platform that was designed by Mitt Romney.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: That’s the message, that the platform, the Republican Party platform was designed by Mitt Romney.

Now, “Keeping Them Honest,” though, there are truthful ways of making that message and less-than-truthful ways.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who you just saw in that clip there, also heads up the Democratic National Committee. I’m going to talk to her in just a moment, but first I just want to show you some of the fund-raising letter that she sent out this week.

It starts off by saying, “Friend, here’s the Republican Party’s message to women in 2012. No choice. No exceptions.” It went on to say, “Their party just voted to embrace Akin’s position by including a constitutional ban on all abortions even in cases of rape or incest in their 2012 platform.”

Then the DNC chairwoman calls out Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan for saying they don’t entirely agree with that plank. And here’s how she backs it up — quoting again from the letter — quote –:

“But guess what? ‘The Los Angeles Times’ reported yesterday that the platform was, and I quote, ‘written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.‘”

Now, those words did appear in “The L.A. Times.” And just that little bit of that quote, “written at the direction of Romney’s campaign,” seems pretty clear, right?

But “Keeping Them Honest,” that quote was taken completely out of context. It was ripped in fact out of a sentence. If you put it back into that sentence, here’s what it looks like — quote — this is from “The L.A. Times.”:

“Delegates for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney are voting down substantive changes to the platform language that were written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.”

So the DNC letter takes the last eight words out of that sentence, using it to suggest something that full sentence obviously does not suggest. And “Keeping Them Honest” there’s more to the story than just selective editing. There are facts that directly contradict the DNC’s claim.

First the abortion language in the 2012 platform, it hardly differs from the 2008 language and the 2004 language in the platform. That language obviously wasn’t written by the Romney campaign. In addition, our own correspondent Peter Hamby was in the room while the platform was being debated or being drafted. He said Romney’s advisers made any number of suggestions, but not on the abortion plank. Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz joins us now.

Congresswoman, in the wake of the comments made by Congressman Akin on abortion, you have been sending out fund-raising appeals that seem or that attempt to link Mitt Romney with Congressman Akin, even Paul Ryan’s position on abortion.

You do acknowledge that Mitt Romney supports abortion in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother, don’t you?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I think women need to know the dramatic difference between President Obama’s position on a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices, as well as the Democratic Party position, and Mitt Romney and the Republican Party.

And so Mitt Romney’s words are very nice, but the bottom line is that Romney’s campaign just directed the Republican Party platform to include the most restrictive constitutional amendment that would say to women that you would have no opportunity to make your own reproductive choices under any circumstances, even in the case of rape or incest.

COOPER: But wait a minute. You’re saying his campaign…

(CROSSTALK)

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: … absolutely silent and makes no exception at all.

COOPER: You’re saying his campaign directed the writing of the platform and that’s the claim you make in your fund-raising…

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: That’s the responsibility of…

COOPER: But it’s not.

(CROSSTALK)

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: That’s the responsibility of a presidential campaign.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: But factually speaking, Mitt Romney did not design or direct the writing of the Republican Party platform. In particular, the language on abortion is virtually the same as it’s been for years.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Are you saying that he wrote it in 2000 and 2004 and 2008? Because it’s the same language. And according to our reporters who were in the room as the platform was being discussed, people could suggest changes and the Romney did suggest changes to a few sections, but they didn’t say anything about the abortion language.

And you can fault them, as you did, for not pushing their position, but you can’t say they designed the abortion section.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: In fact, Anderson, we definitely can say it, because even in the previous platform, Mitt Romney has embraced previous Republican Party platforms and embraced that language and said he would be delighted to support a constitutional amendment banning all abortions.

He has supported personhood amendments. There’s no getting around that Mitt Romney has fully embraced a policy…

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Sorry. I don’t want to speak over you.

But he has for years — you have to acknowledge, he has for years publicly said that he supports abortion in the case of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is at stake.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I can certainly acknowledge that he says that out loud.

And I think it’s very clear that Mitt Romney talks the talk, certainly doesn’t walk the walk. He has fully embraced his party’s platform that includes a constitutional amendment banning all forms of abortion, including with no exception for rape or incest.

COOPER: Do you at least acknowledge that the quote that you gave from “The L.A. Times” is completely incorrect?

(CROSSTALK)

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, I don’t acknowledge that. I know that is what you’re saying.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Well, I can read it to you right now, because what you said is…

(CROSSTALK)

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Anderson, what I’m saying is, it doesn’t matter.

COOPER: I think what you say does matter. You’re quoting “The L.A. Times” and again you have misquoted them and to back up a position.

(CROSSTALK)

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Anderson, Anderson, the point of the e-mail, and there’s no getting around that, and I would think you would agree that there’s no way that a presidential candidate, a party’s nominee, can separate themselves from that party’s platform.

COOPER: He has. (CROSSTALK)

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: There is no exception for rape or incest in the human life amendment. But he hasn’t insisted that his own party’s platform — but, no, he hasn’t, because he hasn’t insisted — he had an opportunity during the drafting of that platform language to make sure that his own view, if that really is his view, is in that party’s platform’s language.

And it isn’t. He didn’t do that. Neither did his campaign team. That’s why we sent the e-mail, because I want to make sure women know that.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: But you sent the e-mail to raise funds and you’re misusing a quote.

And I just think — I do think accuracy is important and my job is to point out things that are not factually correct. What you said…

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: You said, “Guess what? ‘The Los Angeles Times’ reported yesterday that the platform was, and I quote, ‘written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.’”

That sounds very direct, but that’s not actually what “The L.A. Times” was saying.

(CROSSTALK)

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: The bottom line message…

COOPER: The bottom line — what they said is…

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: … “Delegates for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney are voting down substantive changes to the platform language that was written at the direction of Romney’s campaign.”

They’re just not saying they wrote all the language. They’re just saying specific language that the Romney campaign wrote, their surrogates are voting down and abortion language was not part of that.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Anderson, the bottom line message of our e- mail is that, A., women need to know the difference between the two parties and the two presidential candidates on a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices and that Mitt Romney can say that he’s for an exception for rape or incest.

His party platform doesn’t reflect that. He has previously fully embraced a human life amendment with no exception and said he would be delighted to support it and women need to know the difference. And women need to know that Mitt Romney is simply saying one thing, but not insisting that his party’s policies as reflected in their platform reflect his views. And we’re not going to let him get away with it. This is an important decision.

(CROSSTALK)

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And they need to be informed.

COOPER: My only point is, and again it’s my job on both sides of the aisle to point out things that are inaccurate, is in a fund- raising e-mail to misquote something to serve your argument just doesn’t seem in the long term to serve your argument very well.

(CROSSTALK)

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: I understand your point, but I think we — I mean, the balance of the e-mail makes the case very clearly.

And the main thrust of the information we’re trying to convey is that Mitt Romney is disingenuous when it comes to his position on a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices, and he’s extreme and has embraced an extreme position. And we women to know that.

Earlier this month, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer spent four minutes pushing Wasserman Schultz to admit thatÂ to admit that, despite her claims to the contrary, Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform would not affect people over the age of 54.

I think that it is safe to say that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (Democrat Chair appointed by Obama) is a serial LIAR.

“I WILL BE UNAPOLOGETIC ABOUT CAMPAIGNING AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA, THE DNC, AND THEIR ASSAULT ON SMALL BUSINESSES”

All caps emphasis …his.

North Carolina small business owner Calvin Hunter exposes the incestuous, illegal relationship between the Democrat Party and Unions. N.C. being a ‘right to work’ state has not stopped the DNC from insisting that all Democrat National Convention Event Planners, Producers, and Production Companies use union labor.

"President Obamaâ€™s latest ad states, â€ We should all stand behind small businessesâ€. How ironic is that when they will not stand behind my small minority owned business in Charlotte, North Carolina at the Democratic National Convention?"

When I heard the Democratic National Convention was coming to Charlotte, North Carolina, I was very excited. An event such as this is a once in a lifetime event for someone in my business. Although the Convention would be held at Time Warner Arena which uses the local labor union to provide services that I provide, I felt that I would get more than my share of work at other facilities and hotels in Charlotte which I already do. I registered on the DNC Vendor Database and hoped that I would get a fair share of work.

I began to hear rumors that DNC officials were asking all Event Planners, Producers, and Production Companies to use union labor. I got a copy of their RFP (Request for Proposal) and read it myself. The proposal read â€œwe prefer that you use Union laborâ€ for our events. I was flabbergasted. You see, North Carolina is a Right To Work state, which means in laymanâ€™s terms that you cannot make anyone use union labor. For the DNC to come to North Carolina and blatantly break our Right To Work laws is disheartening. Even though the RFP is phrased as â€œwe preferâ€ saying this is enough to tell anyone that wants to get a piece of this $36, 000,000.00 pie, to abide by their preference. Anyone who wants to do business with the DNC will surely not go against their wishes in their RFP. Again this is a once in a lifetime event. Most people in our business will never see an event of this magnitude in a lifetime.
……
This is my story and I will not be afraid to tell it. I should not be afraid to tell my story. I grew up in the projects amongst drug dealers and poverty. I should not be afraid to pursue the American Dream. I bring this illegal activity to light for all people that are afraid to speak out about this injustice. I must expose the DNC!

There is no fair chance to compete for DNC Work
……
America was built by small businessmen who believed in themselves and had the audacity to take a chance on the American Dream. This is the American way. Earn it! This country was founded on the principle that all people will have the opportunity to succeed as far as talent and work ethic will get them.

After listening to the story, this is my personal message to The Democratic National Committee: What you are doing is illegal, unethical, and immoral in a Right To Work State. You should all be ashamed of your selves for discriminating against a black man! As the story says, The DNC is unapologetic about mandating union labor even though it is illegal in a Right to Work State. I WILL BE UNAPOLOGETIC ABOUT CAMPAIGNING AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA, THE DNC, AND THEIR ASSAULT ON SMALL BUSINESSES. It appears less than 2 months out that my company will get no benefits from this Convention. The more than 300 freelancers that work for me will reap no rewards of this once in a lifetime event by the so called Party of the working man! President Obamaâ€™s latest ad states, â€ We should all stand behind small businessesâ€. How ironic is that when they will not stand behind my small minority owned business in Charlotte, North Carolina at the Democratic National Convention?

I am the American Dream!

This black man, who has never asked to be given anything, has worked for everything he achieved, never complained, and contributes to the economy by developing businessmen, not victims, WILL NEVER, EVER, VOTE DEMOCRAT AGAIN! I AM NOW AN INDEPENDENT. Thank you, Democratic National Convention for opening my eyes to what you truly stand for. I refer to the quote â€œInjustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.â€ My final message to the Democratic National Convention is WE SHALL OVERCOME SOME DAY because I am the American Dream!

For those of you who believe in giving business opportunities to small business people, please support THE AMERICAN DREAM! If you are doing an event in Charlotte North Carolina at the Charlotte Convention Center, Hotels, or any venue other than Time Warner Arena, Bojanglesâ€™ Coliseum, or Ovens Auditorium, please consider giving your business to a company that earns your business the American way, Production Management Specialists LLC! For more information about me and my businessâ€™s please visit my Linked in page.

The Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority gives a similar explanation for why it relies on Local 322 for events at Time Warner Cable Arena, Bojangles Coliseum and Ovens Auditorium. But those are city-owned venues, and in North Carolina it’s illegal for a government agency to contract with a labor union.

The CRVA gets around that by asking Local 322 for referrals and hiring those stagehands directly. Local 322 still takes its 5 percentÂ cut from those paychecks. Bo Howard [Local 322 Business Agent] describes the arrangement with CRVA as a “handshake agreement.”

How cozy… Legal?

DNC PREFERS UNIONS

But in reality, the union is everywhere.

And Hunter’s about to lose out to it again on what he hoped would be a big business opportunity. He put himself on the vendor registry the DNC established for companies looking to do convention business, but so far, nothing’s come his way.

“No calls,” says Hunter. “Two months out and no calls. In our business two months out, no calls is not good.”

DNC organizers are unapologetic about their preference for using local union labor when possible.

The proof is in the “no call” pudding.

The ‘International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees’ is a member of Obama union goon pal Richard Trumka’s AFL-CIO.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz chairs the Democratic National Committee. She hasn’t spoken since the failed recall. She joins me now.

Welcome, congresswoman.

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, DNC CHAIR: Thank you, Piers. It’s great to be with you tonight.

MORGAN: I don’t know if you listened to Donald Rumsfeld there, but he concluded that the only possible reason President Obama didn’t go down to Wisconsin to try and win this thing is because he knew he’d lose. Your thoughts?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, I wouldn’t — it’s not really surprising that the secretary would say something like that. The president deployed his entire machinery, grassroots machinery on the ground in Wisconsin, 40 offices, more than a million and a half dollars, our key neighborhood team leaders and volunteers. And we put an unprecedented effort of grassroots into this recall.

We came up short, but at the same — of the ultimate goal, which was to make sure that Governor Walker couldn’t adopt his extremist policies and continue to hurt middle class and working families. But we did apparently succeed in flipping the state Senate. The state Senate is likely now to be controlled by the Democrats.

So we’re going to be able to stop Governor Walker from being able to really continue to pursue those extremist policies. So ultimately we were at least in part successful. We’re — what we demonstrated, Piers, was that Democrats are not going to just lay down and allow the middle class and working families and workers to get run over when an extremist governor has run amuck.

MORGAN: You keep calling him this great extremist who everyone apparently is terrified of and everything else, but the reality is he won. He won pretty convincingly. So the only people laying down, it would seem to everyone else, are the Democrats on this. How are you claiming some kind of weird victory out of all this?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: There’s nothing weird about flipping the state senate. Last year, there were recalls of state senators that were put on the ballot and there were recalls last night. As a result of those victories, the state Senate has gone from being Republican to very likely being Democrat now. And really I’m certainly not going to call it a victory. Like I said, we lost the actual recall of the governor, but –

MORGAN: Let me just jump in there. That is my point. If you keep calling him an extremist, but you accept that he won, what does that say about the people in Wisconsin? Are they all a bunch of mad extremists?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No. What it says is that voters look at a recall very differently than they look at a straight up election. If you look at the exit polling, about 70 percent of the voters that cast ballots yesterday were uncomfortable in some way with the actual recall of a governor.

So while they didn’t like his policies, they didn’t think that they were comfortable with a recall. At the end of the day, I think if you asked any Republican governor in the country if they would trade places with Scott Walker for the last year, and if they would, if they had it to do it over again, take the same steps that Scott Walker did and had to go through a full recall and –

MORGAN: You could argue Scott Walker’s probably thrilled that he had to go through it now, because it’s made him a national superstar. It’s revved up his party. He’s the hero of the hour. So I would imagine he’s thinking, bring on the recalls. Let’s move on to –

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, I can’t imagine that he would be saying that. Most governors in the country wouldn’t trade places with him having to raise 31 million dollars, and really having to spend the last year defending policies –

MORGAN: I suspect Scott Walker’s chuffed to bits tonight….

The moral of the story is, that support for Gov. Scott Walker was highly successful in –neutering –Obama’s –”entire machinery”.

Walker coming out victorious in the recall election has “revved up” the GOP. And we have the Democrats, who were the ones to draw first blood, to thank for that. They started it and Walker finished it with a bang.

Far left wing Democrats scream that anyone who is for Voter identification at the polls is a racist who hates the poor and is trying to disenfranchise voters.Â It is beyond ironic that Democrats are requiring photo i.d. to all who enter their convention this weekend in Springfield [Massachusetts]. From their convention materials:

So, what say you, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserrman-Schultz? Does the ‘racist photo-id’Â litmus test apply in this situation? That is after all, what you and your ilk are claiming Republicans are doing with their fight to enact election photo-id laws, right?

Any rational person would come to the conclusion that preventing voter fraud is as important, if not more so, than attending a paltry Democrat convention.

But that is not how hypocritical Dems such as yourself roll…is it? Why, you even went as far as to play the ‘Jim Crow laws’ card. Then when confronted, you straight up lied saying you had not.

“You know essentially, you’ve taken on sort of the most sympathetic person in the candidate’s realm, the wife, who is taking care of the children, supporting the husband, doing everything she can because she loves him,” Rosen said on Anderson Cooper 360 according to a CNN transcript from May 19, 2008.

“Michelle Obama is a pretty terrific woman I have to say, and I think that attacking her is a dumb strategy on the Republican’s part,” Rosen added.